USA Today article I'm reading says that there are more people on food stamps now than ever before. But it also says that GWB added more people to food stamps on his watch. Of course, that's over a seven-year period.

 

Again, even if it IS true it's not what I'm talking about.

Is this a fair assessment of the reasons why more people may be on food stamps now, versus President Obama's election? And does this mean he's the only one responsible?

 

"The US has shed jobs at an alarming rate over the last decade as companies moved to lower-cost labor markets to locate their production and service facilities. The collapse of the housing and financial markets and the auto industry pushed an unprecedented number of unlikely workers into eligibility as they have been unable to find work after losing their jobs."

 

I get what he wants us to hear. What I don't believe though, is that this happened because of President Obama or even his policies.

Again, even if it IS true it's not what I'm talking about.

 

Clyde, I know what you're talking about. Newt helps get legislation passed that reduces welfare payments, so that creates a need for more food stamp assistance, right? What I'm saying is that it did not negatively effect the Presidencies of Clinton & Bush to the degree that it has Obama.

 

Per USA Today...14.7 million added during Bush's two terms. 14.2 million added during Obama's term.

Clyde, I know what you're talking about. Newt helps get legislation passed that reduces welfare payments, so that creates a need for more food stamp assistance, right? What I'm saying is that it did not negatively effect the Presidencies of Clinton & Bush to the degree that it has Obama.

 

Per USA Today...14.7 million added during Bush's two terms. 14.2 million added during Obama's term.

 

So, assuming at least a portion of the 14.7 added during Bush's two terms are still on food stamps, and the pre-existing number, there would be a "literal truth" to Newt's claim. But, in reality, the statement he makes implies that it is BECAUSE of President Obama's presidency. The missing element, though, is the number who were "grandfathered in"....not ADDED during President Obama's term, but already "in the system".

 

And to Clyde's question, I think it's misleading, at the minimum.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/16/newt-gingrich/newt-gingrich-defends-calling-barack-obama-food-st/

 

"One last point: The number of food stamp beneficiaries had started to head upward under Bush, partly because of more aggressive efforts to get eligible Americans to apply for benefits, and partly because of changes in the rules that had the effect of broadening eligibility. The experts we spoke to agreed that both policies began under Bush but were retained by Obama."

 

It seems to me that Bush is the one that initiated "aggressive efforts" to reach more people with food stamp benefits & that Obama has retained (and escalated?) those efforts. Does that not somewhat negate the effect of the 1996 legislation Newt helped pass?

So, assuming at least a portion of the 14.7 added during Bush's two terms are still on food stamps, and the pre-existing number, there would be a "literal truth" to Newt's claim. But, in reality, the statement he makes implies that it is BECAUSE of President Obama's presidency. The missing element, though, is the number who were "grandfathered in"....not ADDED during President Obama's term, but already "in the system".

 

And to Clyde's question, I think it's misleading, at the minimum.

 

If Newt says Obama has put more people on food stamps, then he's wrong. There are more total people on it (something like 45 million) now than ever, but Obama hasn't added more than Bush. Of course, Bush was two terms & Obama has had just one. Newt would be more accurate to word it that way.

 

And for me, the article I reference in post #20 significantly lessens the impact of the 1996 legislation. It seems that GWB tried to counter that, and was successful in doing so. Obama is at the least continuing that Bush policy.

So, assuming at least a portion of the 14.7 added during Bush's two terms are still on food stamps, and the pre-existing number, there would be a "literal truth" to Newt's claim. But, in reality, the statement he makes implies that it is BECAUSE of President Obama's presidency. The missing element, though, is the number who were "grandfathered in"....not ADDED during President Obama's term, but already "in the system".

 

And to Clyde's question, I think it's misleading, at the minimum.

I am not disagreeing with any of your post. The intent of his remarks was to be misleading. Just like it was the intent of the President during the SOTU to mislead people that all secretaries are paying higher taxes than their bosses. There is an element of truth to everything they say, just as there is an element of deception in every sentence they recite.

 

This remark first got attention because people threw out the race card.

Sometimes statistics can be misleading. Let's say that there ARE more people on food stamps now than ever before.

 

Aren't there more PEOPLE now than ever before?

Sometimes statistics can be misleading. Let's say that there ARE more people on food stamps now than ever before.

 

Aren't there more PEOPLE now than ever before?

 

Good point.

 

But I was also thinking that I saw how they narrowed it down to a percentage. It's something like 1/6 (or very close to that) of the American population is on food stamps now. And I was thinking that was also an all-time high, but I'm not certain on that.

Good point.

 

But I was also thinking that I saw how they narrowed it down to a percentage. It's something like 1/6 (or very close to that) of the American population is on food stamps now. And I was thinking that was also an all-time high, but I'm not certain on that.

 

I believe I saw the same report. It was something shocking. But, again....that's a number that has compiled over the course of time, not a number that are just now getting them.

 

But, for some, cutting social aid programs out is a priority. I wonder what happens to that 1/6 of Americans if that ever happens? At the very least, I hope that the number is lower if/when such a thing would happen.

But, again....that's a number that has compiled over the course of time, not a number that are just now getting them.

 

True. It's not like the President has brought all 45 million on. But there's also no denying that he has added almost as many in one term that GWB did in two terms.

 

And I can't find any numbers on Clinton...specifically the numbers following the 1996 legislation in which Newt was involved that Clyde mentioned at the beginning of this thread.

True. It's not like the President has brought all 45 million on. But there's also no denying that he has added almost as many in one term that GWB did in two terms.

I agree...but I think both President Obama and former President Bush are getting far too much credit for adding them. I personally feel that the collapse of the housing and financial industries did that....I blame this one on the banks. Then, you throw in the businesses who are holding jobs hostage until President Obama is out of office, and you have another group to blame as more are added. Just my opinion.

I agree...but I think both President Obama and former President Bush are getting far too much credit for adding them. I personally feel that the collapse of the housing and financial industries did that....I blame this one on the banks. Then, you throw in the businesses who are holding jobs hostage until President Obama is out of office, and you have another group to blame as more are added. Just my opinion.

 

Certainly those factors contributed to the increase. Hard to tell how much of a factor they were. But that's why I'd like to see the Clinton numbers...specifically his second term. My hunch is that it was not anything close to what it has been under Bush/Obama.

 

Fair or unfair, our Presidents are like the Quarterback of a football team, IMO. Too much credit when things are going well & too much blame when they're not so well.

I agree...but I think both President Obama and former President Bush are getting far too much credit for adding them. I personally feel that the collapse of the housing and financial industries did that....I blame this one on the banks. Then, you throw in the businesses who are holding jobs hostage until President Obama is out of office, and you have another group to blame as more are added. Just my opinion.

 

And let's not forget that your boy (ha ha) Newt made quite a pile of money as a consultant to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or both after he left the political arena several years back. Some (far be it from me) might try to tie Newt to said collapse in an indirect fashion.

 

Okay, here's what I found. If I'm accurately reading those years at the bottom of the chart, it seems to me that from 1996 to 2000 (Clinton's second term) there was a significant drop-off in people receiving food stamps. The legislation Clyde speaks of was enacted in 1996. Then there's a very slight decrease from 2000 to 2001, and then a very steady increase from 2001 to 2006. Then in 2008 it starts to climb rapidly again, until it reaches its current astronomical figure.

 

I feel like this makes my point...refuting the notion that Newt's legislation has helped cause this dramatic increase. Now, he does make a mistake is in saying that Obama has added more people to the food stamp program, because technically he doesn't hold the top spot. He's on pace to do so, but GWB holds that mark by about 450,000. Again though, GWB has two terms vs. Obama's one.

 

I just don't see the correlation between the 1996 legislation & how it caused food stamp needs to increase, because it didn't until 2001. And then the article I linked above also talks about how the Bush administration, at one point, made an effort to broaden eligibility.